Alan Johnson: The Government already encourage microgeneration in a variety of ways. For example, there is a 5 per cent. VAT level on most microgeneration technologies. We have provided £41 million of support for solar photovoltaic projects through the major PV demonstration programme and support for field trials. There is £12.5 million of support for household and community renewable energy schemes through the clear skies initiative; and £30 million of funding for a new low carbon buildings programme. We have also amended the renewables obligation to make it easier for microgenerators to claim renewables obligations certificates.
	My Department is leading the development of a cross-Government strategy for the promotion of microgeneration. This strategy will be published by next April, in accordance with our commitment under the Energy Act 2004.
	In relation to clear skies, I expect that all funding will be allocated by the time the programme ends in March 2006, but projects will have a further 12 months to be completed and to actually spend the money.

Ian Pearson: I am certainly happy to look at the specific situation that the hon. Gentleman mentions. We also want to sell more Scotch whisky to India, and tariffs are unacceptably high. One of the things that we want the Doha development round to achieve is not just help for the poorest countries, although that is absolutely central to our Government's policy, but we want India to reduce some of its tariff barriers, as well as a further strengthening of two-way trade with India. But I will get back to the hon. Gentleman will some answers to the specific question that he asks.

Jo Swinson: What steps the Government is taking to close the gender pay gap in the public sector.

Lynda Waltho: what steps the Government is taking to tackle women's pension inequality.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she has campaigned to focus attention on the issue. I am sure that she welcomes the facts that 1.9 million female carers have been helped by the second state pension and that 63 per cent. of the 5.8 million low earners who benefit are female.

Nigel Griffiths: No, it is not—the Bill is part of the peace process, which has brought big dividends to us in this part of the United Kingdom and, most importantly, to Northern Ireland. These are always difficult decisions. Hon. Members have spoken with a great deal of passion and anger about their personal experiences. Nothing can bring back people who have been killed by terrorists. However, we would not be where we are today if we had not embarked on a peace process that required us to move forward rather than looking back. That has been one of the causes of the problems in Northern Ireland. I would expect someone with the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in this area to promote the peace process rather than make criticisms, that have been made by others, and which the Government do not accept.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to ask a question because he seemed so excited and I wanted to calm him down. It seems that that has not helped. Will he ask a question? If he does so, perhaps he will get an answer.

Nigel Griffiths: I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, if he is not already.

Julian Lewis: Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain to us why the armed forces Bill, which has been long years in the making, has been shoehorned into the parliamentary timetable at a time when no one can possibly prepare properly for Second Reading, whereas the debate on police restructuring, for which everyone is ready, prepared and raring to go, has been withdrawn from the parliamentary timetable? Is it not blindingly obvious that the former should be delayed and the latter reinstated?

Nigel Griffiths: No, it is not. The armed forces Bill is an important piece of legislation that has to be properly timetabled in this House and the other place, and clearly the suitable time for debating it is in eight or nine days' time. As I said, I hope that the fullest possible information on the Bill is available. I know that the hon. Member, like other hon. Members, will not come cold to this subject.

Nigel Griffiths: I read the accounts that the hon. Gentleman has shared with us and I found them as disturbing as he did. I cannot offer him the debate in this House that he asks for, but I hope that he manages to secure an Adjournment debate that allows him to air these issues with the Minister responsible and to get an appropriate response.

Nigel Griffiths: I can ensure that the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reflected in his response to that question are drawn to Ministers' attention, so that the hon. Gentleman can assist his constituents and we can hopefully ensure that the policy is appropriate to the contaminated site issue.

Nigel Griffiths: Those guidelines constitute arrangements made under criminal justice legislation. Previous offenders were in the community with no oversight at all for a substantial part of their sentence. It is important that a more onerous regime for offenders be introduced, so that if they breach licence conditions, they can go back to jail. The problem that the hon. Gentleman highlights, and which was reported, is that young teenagers on a first offence—I am not sure that mugging was the offence; I think that it was snatching of bags that involves no violence—may not, under magistrates' guidelines, get an automatic custodial sentence. That will be a matter for debate in this House and elsewhere.

Nigel Griffiths: I share the hon. Lady's views on this issue; indeed, I was in Gracemount, in my constituency, last Friday discussing this very subject with a community health group. I was going to say that it is important that we bring our attitudes to this subject into the 21st century, but of course, breastfeeding is a natural function that has stood us in good stead in the past. I will ensure that the hon. Lady's views are made available to my colleagues in the Department of Health.

Nigel Griffiths: I will certainly ensure that there is an inquiry into why services in the hon. Gentleman's health authority seem to be failing. They are not failing in other health authorities, and there will be a reason for that.

Peter Robinson: Has the Deputy Leader of the House had the opportunity to look at early-day motion 1120, signed by Members in all parts of the House, which pays tribute to the soccer legend George Best, who died last week?
	[That this House mourns the passing of East Belfast and Northern Ireland soccer legend George Best; salutes his unequalled football skills; acknowledges his place at the pinnacle of world class soccer; and tenders to his family its deepest condolences.]
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in expressing condolences to the family, and will he urge the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement to the House on the Government's intentions regarding a national stadium, given that a large body of opinion in Northern Ireland feels that it should be named after the soccer legend?

Nigel Griffiths: I join the hon. Gentleman in praising the memory of George Best; indeed, I used to watch him play for one of the Edinburgh teams in the 1980s, and he set the stadium alight with his dazzling skills. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is aware of the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on behalf of his constituents and others on the question of a national stadium.

Nigel Griffiths: The White Paper coming before the House next year covers a distinct policy area and, once it is published, I am sure that there will be an opportunity to debate it. Before its publication, there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and his Liberal Democrat colleagues to provide their input.

Robert Syms: I am glad that my hon. Friend has explained that—even though he is straying somewhat from party policy—because it is useful to the debate on amendment No. 3.
	A national revaluation enables the setting of national policy objectives on the redistribution of money. That becomes much more difficult it revaluation is conducted on a regional, sub-regional or local authority basis. My fear as one whose county is not treated well by the grant system is that local revaluation might freeze an unjust distribution of the revenue support grant, which is one of the main political elements of that system.

David Howarth: There are two reasons why I shall be very brief. First, I am a late substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who is sadly unwell. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in wishing her a speedy recovery. Secondly, I understand that there is some annoyance on this side of the House that we are taking this business rather than another debate today, which is a point that hon. Members raised at business questions. However, it strikes me that the protest would be more effective if we were to dispatch the business of the House without unnatural prolongation to demonstrate to the Government, as I said last Thursday, that we could have had both debates on the same day. shall reiterate my party's position. We support the Bill and want to see revaluation stopped, for the simple reason that under the system of local government taxation that we would adopt—local income tax—no valuations or revaluations would be necessary in the first place.
	On amendment No. 3, the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has made a serious point. I agree with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that if we support the general idea of council tax, amendment No. 3 is an interesting idea that should be explored, and I hope that the Lyons committee will explore it. There is, however, a serious objection, which Conservative Members raised almost as soon as the hon. Member for Mole Valley rose to speak. As the amendment stands, the Secretary of State's power to order separate local or regional revaluations could be used in a politically biased way.
	The hon. Member for Mole Valley has repeatedly raised another serious problem in the debates about the Bill—the connection between the council tax banding system and the grant that the Government hand out to particular local authorities. It would not be beyond the wit of the Government to use that connection to produce a politically interesting result, which has not been unknown in the past. In reply to that point, the hon. Member for Mole Valley said that he would institute a different system of calculating the grant. I was interested to hear him say that he would use a system based on income levels in various districts, which is the precise basis for equalisation under local income tax, and I urge him to go much further along that line of thinking.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I intended to raise because it is the second reason for my concern about the amendment.
	I have reservations about the amendment's drafting because the power is too broad. I would be more inclined to support it if it were drawn so that revaluation could take place only when a request had been made from the bottom up—from the relevant authority or authorities. I hope that I have made my first worry clear.
	My second concern relates to growth, which several hon. Members mentioned, including my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South and for St. Albans (Anne Main). I am a Thames gateway Member of Parliament, but the point does not apply only to that area. Some of my hon. Friends have argued that an area of especially high growth might give the local authority an incentive to revalue. I understand the logic of that but it is no secret that, in some of the proposed high growth areas, there is much local resistance to the amount of house building that the Government want. That is true of parts of the Thames gateway and I believe it to be true of the other growth areas that have been mentioned.
	If we allowed local authorities to revalue specifically in those areas on the basis of growth, residents and council tax payers might feel that they were being doubly punished. Not only would they be asked to accept all the additional housing—to which many constituents and I are resistant—and the attendant pressures on infrastructure, which I do not need to repeat in case I stray out of order; all hon. Members are familiar with the arguments, but they would also get a revaluation thrown in. That is not likely to be popular with residents and council tax payers even if the local authority wanted a revaluation for understandable financial reasons. However, people just over the border of the development area would not have to accept so many houses, suffer the infrastructure pressures or get the revaluation thrown in.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course, the First Secretary of State talks a lot about localism, but in reality he is in favour of centralisation. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) would introduce a degree of localism into the process, and it would be useful for that reason.
	I am not sure whether Members realise the extent to which average council tax per dwelling has increased since 1993–94. The Halifax has done some useful work on the subject, and the average council tax per dwelling in 1993–94 was £456, whereas this year it is £1,009. That is an increase of £553, or 121 per cent., when average net income has gone up by 82 per cent. That is an increase of about 50 per cent. more than the increase in average net incomes.

Greg Knight: You will stop me if I stray too far in responding to that question, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation. For a period, I was sponsor Minister of the city of Derby, and I did whatever I could, whenever I could, to bring more money and investment into the city.
	Make no mistake that bullying takes place. Birmingham city council has removed one of the Government's precious bus lanes to reduce congestion, and the Secretary of State has threatened the council with loss of grant unless it reinstates that lane. Ministers do make threats to local authorities, so my concern is not exaggerated or far-fetched.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) described me as paranoid on this issue. I would put it this way: I am rightly concerned about corruption of power. Are we to pass a sloppily drafted amendment that gives a Secretary of State the unfettered right to make an order in any circumstances that he chooses? The amendment puts no limitations on the exercise of his power; nor does it say that he has to consider what has happened to property values or to population movement. I am deeply concerned that the provision could be used in an unfair way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A little while ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that I had missed a lot of a very interesting debate. I have been following it very closely from outside the Chamber—as, of course, I always do with such debates—and I have noticed the number of times that Members have had to be called to order to ensure that they addressing the amendment. I am doing that yet again to the right hon. Gentleman, and I tell all Members that I want them to speak to the amendment; otherwise, I shall pull them up rather sharply.

Lee Scott: One problem is that, in areas such as the Thames gateway, which takes in a number of different authorities, too much localism could lead to completely different revaluation results. A wider approach would need to be taken in such areas.

Phil Woolas: I shall direct my remarks to the amendment and its implications. The assumption behind several contributions this afternoon has been, frankly speaking, wrong. It concerns the fear of potential political manipulation, and it assumes that the relative increase in property prices within an area and between areas has taken place only or mainly in areas with higher incomes. However, statistics published by independent bodies show that that is not the case. In layperson's terms, the Conservatives assume for the purposes of this debate that oop north, we are all poor and live in terraced houses. I should point out to them that Cheshire is the second richest county in the country—and a very beautiful county it is.
	The second mistake that has been made is to assume that those areas that have had relative increases in prices, where a revaluation would increase the tax yield, are all under the control of the Conservative party. That is not the case. The Conservatives make the same mistake as my party made in the 1980s, which is to assume that certain parts of the country are naturally aligned with one party and parts are aligned with another. If a revaluation were to increase the tax yield and therefore reduce the resource equalisation element—the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) covered that point—the implication is that that would take place entirely in non-Labour areas. One could not achieve that outcome even if one wanted to, and I shall explain why. I reject the allegation about the allocation under the formula and I reject the allegation, also made by some Opposition Members, that that would be used in a politically manipulative way.
	The Government will ask the House not to support the amendment. I was a little confused when I saw the amendment, but I now have a much clearer understanding of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. He gave the example of a particular area in the country, but Madam Deputy Speaker ruled it out of order, so I shall not repeat it—but it is by a big river in the south-east of England. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that all the new properties that are built in that area will be revalued when they are first sold, and that therefore it is necessary to have a local valuation of the existing properties. However, the new properties will be valued and allocated to council tax bands, based on the values of the antecedent valuation date of 1991, the same date at which all properties in the country continue to be valued.
	If there were to be a subsequent resale of those properties, they would be revalued only if they had been significantly improved, for example, by the addition of a swimming pool, but perhaps not by the addition of a patio, as some hon. Members have suggested. That is the policy that has been in place since 1991. Even then—this is the crucial point—the revaluation would still be based on the 1991 antecedent valuation date. That addresses the point that was drawn to our attention by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
	As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail. I have some practical arguments about why the amendment would not work, as well as policy ones. As many hon. Members have said, at first sight, the amendment seems consistent with the policy of devolution, given the flexibility to carry out a revaluation limited to a single billing authority or a group of adjacent billing authorities if a such a revaluation is demanded locally. However, the detail shows the difficulty of the amendment's practical implications.
	First, let us consider the implications for the Valuation Office Agency. Perhaps I can give the House some information that will be useful in considering the amendment. Following significant investment in modern technology, which essentially involves the computerisation of manual records, and the development of the automated valuation model, whereby a computer is given the details of different properties, it is true that the VOA could calibrate the system to cope with different valuation and revaluation dates for the billing authorities. Modern technology could allow what the hon. Member for Mole Valley suggests. However, let us consider for a moment the situation that could prevail in years to come.
	As a result of the amendment, we could face a national taxation system based on multiple valuation dates and a host of different banding structures. Of course, we cannot revalue without rebanding. That is an essential point. If we assume that each valuation would involve a transitional scheme—the hon. Gentleman may want to address that point if he wishes to respond to the debate—we would be left with a hotch-potch of systems operating in different parts of the country and the confusion for the public would be too dire to contemplate.

David Howarth: I was about to come to that point.
	The second objection mentioned in Committee was that the amendment implied that divergence is the only reason why a revaluation might or might not proceed, but that is not what we are saying. We are saying that divergence is one reason that must be dealt with in the debate, whether or not the Government think that it is their central reason.
	The third point concerned cost, which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned. It was said in Committee that there would be a cost in officials' time. However, the figures are generally available from the Land Registry and from the series maintained by the Halifax building society and by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. There would be no great cost in compiling the figures, but it would involve a good deal of effort from Ministers in constructing their reasons based on the information available to them. That is not an unreasonable burden for the political heads of Government Departments to bear in the interests of greater openness.
	I do not want to detain the House any further. The amendment is a proposed addition to the Bill from a party that is generally friendly to it. It would increase transparency and allow us to have a better debate, were these questions to arise again, than we have had on this occasion.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to say again in the House that the Government's policy is to postpone, not to cancel, the revaluation. The property-based council tax is the basis of the review by Sir Michael Lyons and I referred again to the desirability of reforming the council tax system and the measures that go with it.
	The important thing to recognise is that the staff and contractors of the Valuation Office Agency have no powers to forcibly inspect a property for council tax valuation purposes. The VOA does not forcibly enter people's homes—it does not have either the legal power or the desire to do so. For a member of the VOA to take photographs of the inside of a property would be extremely rare and it would only ever be done with the express permission of the householder. In fact, the VOA has clear guidance for its staff about on-site inspections. It expressly states that photographs can be taken only with the permission of the householder, and must not show people, details of security systems, or valuable possessions.
	The basis on which property is valued for council tax purposes is the same now as it was when the council tax was introduced. The VOA seeks to assign a market value based on the variables that operate in the market. If one property has a scenic view and another overlooks a chemical plant, it is likely that the one with the scenic view will attract a higher relative market value than the one with the view of a chemical plant. There is nothing new or surprising about that. If one property has an attribute that leads to its market value being higher than its next-door neighbour, it is only fair that that should be reflected in its banding. This has always been the case and nothing has changed since 1992.
	As I mentioned in Committee, the fact that the VOA is capturing property attributes in a database using codes does not indicate some sinister, new, Big Brother database. It is simply the most effective and efficient way of capturing data in a form that can be used by the valuation model to come up with a fair and justifiable valuation, on computers, rather than on paper. That process has previously been done manually by a valuation officer. I recall that estate agents had to be hired quickly to ensure that the council tax could be introduced to replace the unpopular poll tax. The only difference now is that the valuation officers have the benefit of modern technology to support them in their task.
	I wish to use this opportunity to reassure hon. Members and members of the public—I hope that they have paid attention to the debate or will read the reports of it—that suggestions that people who are unable to pay their council tax will be sent to prison are not true. People who wilfully refuse to pay may be imprisoned under powers that have existed for many years, but that is entirely different to the position of someone who is unable to pay. Nobody has ever been jailed for being unable to pay, nor would they be.
	Only last weekend, at the very time that winter fuel payments and £200 cheques for pensioner's council tax rebates were landing on the doormats of millions of pensioner households, there were stories touting a survey about the impact of council tax increases on the elderly. That survey was mentioned by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)—incidentally, he was the Under-Secretary who introduced the poll tax in the late 1980s—and by its own admission, it excluded council tax benefits and rebates for the elderly. I should say in acknowledging the point made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley that the reports of that survey have led to yet more anxiety among the elderly.
	The Government have already said that we will use our capping powers against councils with excessive council tax increases and budgets, as we did this year and last year. I give that reassurance to those who may be anxious about council tax.
	Almost 2.5 million people aged 60 or over now receive council tax benefit, which provides a rebate of up to 100 per cent. of their bills. In addition, £100 was given to households with someone aged 70 or over in 2004–05, to help them with their council tax bills. For 2005–06, households with someone aged 65 or over are receiving £200, which is paid with the winter fuel payments unless they are already entitled to a 100 per cent. council tax rebate.

Mark Francois: I declare something of an interest in an historical sense at least, having served in local government in the mid-1990s. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), and I listened carefully to what he said. I was slightly disturbed to hear earlier this afternoon that his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), was not able to be with us as anticipated, because unfortunately she is not very well. The hon. Gentleman may not know that I was the Conservative candidate in Brent, East at the 1997 general election, when I fought against a chap called Mr. Ken Livingstone, who was then a Member of Parliament. I ran him fairly close—just another 16,000 little votes and I would have defeated him. Having some familiarity with the hon. Lady's constituency, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would pass on my regards and, I am sure, those of all other hon. Members, and wish her a safe and healthy return to us next week.
	It is a pleasure to speak shortly after my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who worked in local government in Essex earlier in her career. Her knowledge of these matters was clearly reflected in the quality of her contribution a few minutes ago.
	The Bill has just two clauses. It is one of the shortest that I have debated in my time in the House, but it serves an important purpose in that it delays the revaluation of properties for council tax purposes in England. In a briefing note that was produced in October, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors pointed out that the proposed revaluation which was to be undertaken by the Revaluation Office Agency would have represented
	"the largest exercise of its kind in the world".
	As such, the decision to delay it, which the Bill facilitates, represents one of the first major post-election climbdowns by the Government—although given recent events, I trust that it will by no means be the last.
	It is a truism that no one likes paying taxes, but the level of council tax, even on the existing valuations, which will run for several more years at least, is one of the major features of my constituency mailbag. That is particularly true in the spring, when council tax demands go out, and in responses from pensioners, many of whom live on relatively fixed incomes and find that their council tax bill is their biggest single monthly outlay, particularly if they have paid off their mortgage. Many people experience considerable difficulty in meeting those bills, so at least they will not face the added burden of a revaluation in the short term.
	As part of the debate on this Bill has related to the subject and process of billing, I want to make a few brief points on how changes in the billing system have affected public attitudes to the spending of funds by precepting authorities. The breaking-out of components on the overall council tax bill into individual line items, such as policing and fire and civil protection, has, I think, been a positive move on the whole. It certainly tends to concentrate constituents' minds on how money is actually spent on those particular services, once they are itemised.
	For instance, when I was first elected to this House back in 2001, I think that some of those items were still effectively subsumed within the overall totals. However, it is interesting to note that now that those have been broken out, constituents have started to ask more specific questions about how such itemised money is being spent. I see that one or two Labour Members are nodding in assent to that proposition.
	Policing precepts, for example, have generated quite a bit of correspondence from my constituents in the past few years. Indeed, one of the reasons why I am so opposed to the regionalisation of police forces in East Anglia is that Essex has a relatively low police precept compared with other East Anglian forces, so any regional merger would probably lead to a rounding-up of precepts, which could lead to proportionately higher increases in Essex on the policing precept and thus on the overall bottom-line level of council tax. I shall say nothing more about that subject this afternoon for fear of straying out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but suffice to say that people pay enough council tax in Essex as it is, without having to pay an even higher bottom-line figure to prop up unpopular reforms that have little or no public support.
	I suspect that part of the Government's rationale behind backing away from short term revaluation has been the howl of protest that followed the change to the formula determining the level of grant paid to local authorities by Her Majesty's Treasury. Because between two thirds and three quarters of the eventual council tax is determined by that level of grant, however the individual properties within the local authority are banded, any changes to the formula clearly have important implications for the remaining element, which has to be raised directly by the local authority. That then falls across the council tax base, which we now know is not likely to be revalued in the short term.
	I must challenge the Minister on a point that he raised on Report. Any alteration in the grant formula normally creates winners and losers, and the change, which took place a few years ago, from the standard spending assessment system to the revised formula spending share system certainly did that all right. The Minister contended on Report that there are very few specific examples where that has been a problem. I shall answer his point directly: most of the losers in the transfer of resources that took place in the switch from SSA to FSS were not exclusively, but overwhelmingly local authorities—both county and district councils—concentrated in the south-east of England; most of the gainers, although not exclusively, were urban and metropolitan authorities in the midlands and the north of England. There was effectively an important shift of resources from the south-east to the midlands and the north, which had important knock-on effects on the council tax bills subsequently levied on council tax payers.
	In the year in which the switch took place, the county council precept in Essex went up by 16 per cent. in one hit, because millions and millions of pounds in grant were removed from Essex and given to Labour's friends in the midlands and the north.

NHS Dentistry (Durham)

Rosie Winterton: I contest the notion that this is another treadmill. It is important that, under the new system, dentists can continue to undertake a mix of private, public and NHS work. The new contracts will reflect the way in which they have previously worked. We expect dentists who have recently undertaken units of activity or interventions to make a reasonable commitment to the same level of activity with the same cohort of patients, although we accept that they may undertake a mixture of private and NHS work.
	My hon. Friend is concerned about access problems caused by the fact that people outside the city are registered with local dentists. That has been the case for many years, and we have no plans to replace the system because doing so would require many people to find different dentists from those to whom they have become accustomed. It is true that the system is not based on residency, but changing it could affect continuity of care for existing patients.
	My hon. Friend asked what would happen if dentists did not take up the new contract. The point of the changes that we are making is this. In the past, when a dentist has left the NHS the money has returned to the centre; now, the primary care trust will retain it locally. That money must be spent on NHS dentistry, which means that more dentists can be brought into the area if there is a shortage. It can be spent on salaried dental services if the PCT thinks that appropriate, although such services usually involve community dental access centres and the like. PCTs can also commission additional services from existing dentists. The money will be there to meet local needs.
	As my hon. Friend said, in the longer term we are reversing the closure of two dental schools. The British Dental Association has spoken of the need to increase the number of dentists, and there is such a need—although more dentists are registered, fewer of them work for the NHS.
	My hon. Friend is right about what we hope to achieve with the new system. We have discussed with dentists the need to move away from the drill and fill treadmill and to introduce a much simpler charging system. I hope that that will result in a commitment to NHS dentistry. We want to rectify many of the problems that dentists say they have experienced with earlier contracts. Our recruitment of some 1,400 more dentists over the past year demonstrates that there are dentists out there who wish to work for the NHS, but we will continue the programme if some dentists do not want to join in our reforms.

CORRECTION

29 November 2005: In col. 142, in the Noes, delete "Eagle, Maria" and insert "Eagle, Angela".